tv [untitled] June 23, 2013 5:30pm-6:01pm PDT
we believe in continuity of services and second draw on the data to bring focus to the areas of greatest needs. we will continue to identify our urgent needs. we want to look at age and neighborhoods and risk factors. we were wanting to focus in on the young people living in under housed situations. children who are homeless in risk or system involved. english language learners and documented young people. the third you principle are to champion places were there gaps.
as stewards of the fund we want children to be succeeding in school and living in save communities. however, we really want to hone in and focus in on two prim goals children ready to learn and succeed in school. the strategies we've developed in the 2013 cycle buildings on the strong work in our department. we remain committed while recognizing that a wide range of supporting outcomes are for all our children. the approach in this slide is
intended to be holistic addressing the needs of the children while having healthy families. those outcomes are sponsored through investments in early education and youth empowerment and development. they're including family and school centers health and nutrition services. through our investment we have reached over 56 thousand children in the city and support over 2 hundred and 50 cb os >> yesterday, i mentioned there's about 1 hundred thousand children in the city and we serve about half that population. >> yes.
>> so i'm here today to talk about our process and try to provide for transparency around the process. this information has been out there for the public to assess since decisions have been made. one of the questions is what is the information shared with after the rfp was realized in addition to, you know, making the rfps i want to show you it's a fairly large document we have
it's a table that shows for every strategy the priorities of the strategy how much funding was available in that particular strategy. but we talked about that and then lout for grantees or interested applicants to submit questions. on our application is submitted online so we went over the process on that. and after we did all the q and a we posted that as well so anyone who was not at the preproposal conference would ask questions >> you have clear priorities and guidelines that your you using and you're saying the information after the allocations were made then you
put everything up on line. >> that's correct. so the decision process. i do want to acknowledge again in the hand out. you have 2. the one with the strategy tables is in terms of the selection process and that was made available online. there's a much more detailed document that goes over the decision process in detail. when we released all the award we put that on our website. so to start with every proposal was read and there were hundreds of scores that had to be recruited for this process.
after the reviewers submitted their information we went through the process. this is a procedure we used in the last rfp and it was reviewed through the audit of the process by the controllers. we also create what's called a neighborhood score. and again on our website we provided details on how the neighborhood needs scores. and i know i acknowledge that zip codes sometimes over generalize but at this point it's one the best processes. there are other ways we go look at needs. any proposal that receives minimum reviewer score of '75 or a combination of a proposal score of 65 and had a high
neighborhood need score got to the selection process. the selection process is when folks from d c wifi and our partners sit together and we go through all the proposals that got through to the selection process. some of the things we're looking at is to extent that the program is a priority and the program requirements. we looked at the strength and weaknesses of the program design. we were very specific about the design of the programs. and for clear grantees we looked at past performances and new ones we visited their programs. every program that gets through to this selection process their
for example, if you were doing arts you had more competition. so at the end 2 hundred and 85 proposals of the 2 hundred 90 those advanced to the selection process that i described and in the end 2 hundred and 89 were awarded funding. we were asked to provide some data this is hot off the press so i haven't had a full opportunity to review this but we're certainly open to meeting with your staff. this is by the strategies and the actual proposals submitted and awarded. what we're looking at is our funding by district. how it appeared in 2013 and it
compares in 2014. we're going to do the match of the district and we know it isn't representative of all district but we know what district were picking you up from. we have the data that a lot of the kids are coming out of district 5. i want to point out the citywide fund at the bottom is over looked at but that citywide funding is cruel when it comes to target some of the places in the city. the workforce plan for example, we may have a program like one in the mission but their serving
kids from across the city and reaching into the other departments like juvenile. so the citywide services some days with not recognized as reaching the kids in our district but they are. other example is my interim went to the bay area and she came to our office everyday to work that would have been citywide funding. okay. so this the the projection of kids to be served. at any time compared to again consensus 21 data. and here again, it's american people imperfect matching but this is what we have. even when we
district. this is the last question. can i turn it over to you? >> so the last question was around the summer and how do we decide. so in this slide you can see that this is similar to the last rfp in which we partnered with the school district. we wanted to simplify the application. so really it was in the spirit of trying to simplify the process so they didn't have to submit duplicate applications. and in the last slide in that it
describes how the guiding principles we used. once again similar to the last partnership we wanted to leverage the state funding. and this year we were able to allocate more funding for summer programs so we were able to match some of the summer excel there's so we can do some summer programs we're really excited about. and with that that concludes our presentation. so i'm more than happy to answer questions >> thank you, ms. sue. supervisor mar or breed >> yeah. i want to thank the
department. i know it's going to take time to look at this. i appreciate the neighborhood with the most need the clear process you go through and the huge amount of proposals. i'm very supportive of the effort and it gives some capacity building as supervisor breed said really produce strong results but may not be the best is the drafting the proposals and know how to get our proposal through the process. some neighborhoods are getting the short end of the stick and i do feel that equity means not looking at blanket zip codes but
looking at the pockets of poverty that exists. district 1 if you look at 94118 it has poverty and rich folks. some are living in the units crammed behind garages. sometimes, the affluent part of the zip code might hide the poverty in the district. i see that 6, 5 and a 1 are the ones that decrease. district 6 for example, the poorest people live in the tenderloin and market area but it's heighten by the more affluent people who have moved to the parts of the city.
so i think we should look at the different pockets. there are tremendous needs 90 in district one. but hopefully, we're having a conversation about that >> supervisor breed. >> i'll just say we can have a more detailed look at the information but in the interest of public comment i don't time to go down the road and repeat what's been said. thanks >> okay. thank you colleagues and ms. sue. we'll continue this into next week. so at this time we're going to open it up for pickup comment. there's a lot of people here and again, i would ask we give preferences to elderly and disabled as well as children but
i want to commend all. this is for all the items we've called today so, please came forward >> go ahead. >> my name is ryan and i'm a client at the larkin street youth services. it has a great education higher-up we're next door to drop in. they're very he helpful they help us get our ged or high school diploma. i became a member and the second day i wanted to enroll back into
school and the staff helped to enroll in march in may i graduated and got my high school diploma. they're very helpful to get our education. and i'm working on getting to san francisco city college. so i'd like to give my huge thanks for them helping me to get to this point. yeah, it's a good program. thank you >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please come on up and if there are members of the public who are elderly or have small children speak to one of the volunteers. >> i'm bernard.
since we're addressing all budget items i want to focus our attendance on the central subway budget we believe should be placed in awe obedience until there's a friends audit. particularly regard the false and legality uncertain california environmental act and accessibility of the handicap walk between union square and market street replacing is by benches does not meet the standards. secondly, the subway will be 80 feet above market street subjecting it to earthquake and no litigation has been
the board of supervisors would inspect some funds for. i find that i have worked with ken and others. and they would have seniors at curry who come in 12 a month of they're new clients are likely to be homeless. they can come from anywhere in the city just because you're not in that neighborhood become desperate for a place to stay. they need - you don't put them too far away from the bathroom or on the top bu